The Kerala High Court recently held that individual autonomy and freedom of choice with respect to religious faith cannot be curtailed merely due to parental disagreement [Joju George & ors v State of Kerala & ors].
In a judgment delivered on March 23, a division bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian emphasised that the choice of an adult individual regarding faith, belief or the way of life, fall within the private domain of an individual.
Hence, the Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by parents alleging illegal detention of their adult daughters in a religious congregation
The Bench stated that court must be cautious before entertaining habeas corpus matters alleging illegal detention or coercion without sufficient proof.
"In our view, the choice of the alleged detenus with regard to their beliefs or the congregation that they must join is a matter that rests exclusively within the private domain of the individual concerned. Interference by the State in such matters would have a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutional freedoms by the individual concerned. It is therefore that, as the “sentinels on the qui vive”, this Court must tread with caution when called upon to issue writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus alleging illegal detention of the person for whose benefit the writ is sought," the Court added.
The petition was filed by three parents alleging that their daughters, aged 21, 26 and 30, were being illegally detained by members of a religious congregation known as the Monastery of Holy Ruah (MHR).
According to the petitioners, their daughters had joined the congregation when it was recognised by the Archdiocese of Thrissur.
However, after the Archdiocese dissolved the congregation in 2023, the parents claimed that their daughters continued to remain there under coercion.
The petitioners argued that parental guidance and authority over children should not be brushed aside merely because the children had attained majority.
They further contended that courts should intervene where decisions taken by adult children were immature or influenced, particularly when such decisions could affect their lives and their respective families.
However, the Court rejected these arguments stressing that the relief under a habeas corpus petition was available only when there was a clear evidence of illegal detention.
The Court placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments including Hadiya case to state that in cases involving adults, courts must respect personal autonomy, which is a facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
It clarified that habeas corpus jurisdiction is typically exercised in cases involving minor or persons in capable of making independent decisions. However, when dealing with competent adults, the courts must be satisfied that there is actual physical control or restraint over the individual.
The Court also stated that it did not find any material to support the allegation of illegal detention and noted that the alleged detenus were educated adults capable of making informed decisions.
Significantly, it observed that the dispute appeared to have stemmed from the parent's dissatisfaction with their daughter's religious choices rather than actual coercion.
"The mere disgruntlement of a parent with the decision of his adult daughter, who has chosen a life of celibacy by responding to the call of the Divine, cannot be the basis for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus." the Court added, while dismissing the petition.
Senior counsel George Poonthottam along with advocates Thomas J Anakkallunkal, Arun Chandran, Jayaraman S, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Dhanya Sunny and Ann Milka George appeared for the petitioners.
Government Pleader KA Anas represented the state.
[Read Judgment]